4 ms·

As a layperson, "they landed immediately and required inspection before being allowed to fly again" (not a direct quote, but it represents what the article said

As a layperson, "they landed immediately and required inspection before being allowed to fly again" (not a direct quote, but it represents what the article said), seems pretty severe to me.

jcutrell 4y ago
Ultimately this would be true for most anomalies. It's one of the reasons commercial air travel is as safe as it is. In a car, you hit a bump, you keep going. In a plane, something unexpected happens and that plane is grounded. The utility function is just too skewed to take even a slight risk in this regard.
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  It's a matter of regulation and policy. I was on a regional bus recently in the rain (Ontario's GO Transit) and a small car next to us hydroplaned and bumped the side of the bus. The driver immediately - Pulled over onto the shoulder, - Passed around a pad to collect everyone's contact information, - Summoned a replacement bus, and - Called the provincial police to escort us along the shoulder to the replacement bus. In the moment, all of this felt a little over the top, and the total delay of about 20mins total was pretty frustrating given that I ended up missing a connection. But at the end of the day, it builds my trust in the safety of that system that the fitness of any particular piece of equipment is not up to the individual drivers to judge— part of paying for a ticket on the state-run transit system is expecting a higher level of safety than, say, what you might get on a Chinatown bus line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_bus_lines#Accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_bus_lines#Accidents). And I think I was also glad that it hadn't happened to me in my personal vehicle, where I would have to be the one to assess fitness and then deal with the insurance and so-on in the aftermath.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    I don’t think this is because of the potential damage to the bus but moreso that the driver was just involved in an accident.
- klodolph 4y ago
  Depends on the bump. If I heard some metal-on-metal or metal-on-road scraping on a car, I'd pull over and inspect. If I felt a bumper or tire bump when I was parking I would not care.
sokoloff 4y ago
What’s the alternative? Land again and don’t look at it? Inspections after abnormals are fairly common and many amount to nothing more than “inspected tail skid and aft fuselage, no defects founds, return to service”.
- greggyb 4y ago
  I was not suggesting an alternative. The comment I responded to started with, "The article downplayed the seriousness of a tail strike." I was pointing out that the article described a course of action that, in fact, sounds serious to a layperson. It seems to me that "land and have a required inspection" is an indication of seriousness, not an indication of downplaying the severity.
geocrasher 4y ago
When people do this in cars, they might get worse mileage or track funny down the road. When the aviation industry just glances and says "Ah, it's fine", people die.
- greggyb 4y ago
  I agree. But this article describes thoroughly and repeatedly that no one said "Ah, it's fine." You said, "The article downplayed the seriousness of a tail strike." I was pointing out that the thing they described multiple times did not sound like downplaying to me, as a layperson. "They immediately landed," sounds serious. "They grounded the fleet," sounds serious. "The planes required inspection before being allowed to fly," sounds serious. Nothing in the article reads to me, as a layperson, as if they were saying a tail strike is not serious.
  - geocrasher 4y ago
    I just re-read the thread and I realize that I took your comment "seemed pretty severe to me" incorrectly. I thought you were saying that it was an overreaction, but rather you were saying that it was a strong enough reaction and that my assessment of them not taking the tail strikes seriously was incorrect. In that case, we're both right about different things. I was referring to the article, and you were referring to the airline. The airline absolutely did the right thing and took the tail strikes seriously. As for the article, it focused on the strong reaction to the error in the software. The article did not discuss the serious consequences of a tail strike. Considering that multiple aircraft (and many lives) have been lost due to tail strikes, I was surprised that it was not mentioned.
mcherm 4y ago
> seems pretty severe to me It is. We could certainly operate an aviation industry with a lot less regulation and a lot less care for safety. Operated that way, air travel would be noticeably cheaper. But it would also be more dangerous. Frankly, I like the trade-off we have chosen.
- greggyb 4y ago
  The comment I am responding to stated, "The article downplayed the seriousness of a tail strike." I am saying that the article said things that sound severe, as a direct response to the claim that the article downplayed the seriousness.

As a layperson, "they landed immediately and required inspection before being allowed to fly again" (not a direct quote, but it represents what the article said), seems pretty severe to me.

jcutrell 4y ago

Ultimately this would be true for most anomalies. It's one of the reasons commercial air travel is as safe as it is. In a car, you hit a bump, you keep going. In a plane, something unexpected happens and that plane is grounded. The utility function is just too skewed to take even a slight risk in this regard.

mikepurvis 4y ago
It's a matter of regulation and policy. I was on a regional bus recently in the rain (Ontario's GO Transit) and a small car next to us hydroplaned and bumped the side of the bus. The driver immediately - Pulled over onto the shoulder, - Passed around a pad to collect everyone's contact information, - Summoned a replacement bus, and - Called the provincial police to escort us along the shoulder to the replacement bus. In the moment, all of this felt a little over the top, and the total delay of about 20mins total was pretty frustrating given that I ended up missing a connection. But at the end of the day, it builds my trust in the safety of that system that the fitness of any particular piece of equipment is not up to the individual drivers to judge— part of paying for a ticket on the state-run transit system is expecting a higher level of safety than, say, what you might get on a Chinatown bus line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_bus_lines#Accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_bus_lines#Accidents). And I think I was also glad that it hadn't happened to me in my personal vehicle, where I would have to be the one to assess fitness and then deal with the insurance and so-on in the aftermath.
- kortilla 4y ago
  I don’t think this is because of the potential damage to the bus but moreso that the driver was just involved in an accident.
klodolph 4y ago
Depends on the bump. If I heard some metal-on-metal or metal-on-road scraping on a car, I'd pull over and inspect. If I felt a bumper or tire bump when I was parking I would not care.

sokoloff 4y ago

What’s the alternative? Land again and don’t look at it? Inspections after abnormals are fairly common and many amount to nothing more than “inspected tail skid and aft fuselage, no defects founds, return to service”.

greggyb 4y ago
I was not suggesting an alternative. The comment I responded to started with, "The article downplayed the seriousness of a tail strike." I was pointing out that the article described a course of action that, in fact, sounds serious to a layperson. It seems to me that "land and have a required inspection" is an indication of seriousness, not an indication of downplaying the severity.

geocrasher 4y ago

When people do this in cars, they might get worse mileage or track funny down the road. When the aviation industry just glances and says "Ah, it's fine", people die.

greggyb 4y ago
I agree. But this article describes thoroughly and repeatedly that no one said "Ah, it's fine." You said, "The article downplayed the seriousness of a tail strike." I was pointing out that the thing they described multiple times did not sound like downplaying to me, as a layperson. "They immediately landed," sounds serious. "They grounded the fleet," sounds serious. "The planes required inspection before being allowed to fly," sounds serious. Nothing in the article reads to me, as a layperson, as if they were saying a tail strike is not serious.
- geocrasher 4y ago
  I just re-read the thread and I realize that I took your comment "seemed pretty severe to me" incorrectly. I thought you were saying that it was an overreaction, but rather you were saying that it was a strong enough reaction and that my assessment of them not taking the tail strikes seriously was incorrect. In that case, we're both right about different things. I was referring to the article, and you were referring to the airline. The airline absolutely did the right thing and took the tail strikes seriously. As for the article, it focused on the strong reaction to the error in the software. The article did not discuss the serious consequences of a tail strike. Considering that multiple aircraft (and many lives) have been lost due to tail strikes, I was surprised that it was not mentioned.

mcherm 4y ago

> seems pretty severe to me It is. We could certainly operate an aviation industry with a lot less regulation and a lot less care for safety. Operated that way, air travel would be noticeably cheaper. But it would also be more dangerous. Frankly, I like the trade-off we have chosen.

greggyb 4y ago
The comment I am responding to stated, "The article downplayed the seriousness of a tail strike." I am saying that the article said things that sound severe, as a direct response to the claim that the article downplayed the seriousness.